Dubstepforum.com

jags wrote:

Genevieve wrote: The guy most lefists look to for a lesson on monetary policy is the same guy that never asked himself "maybe it's me and not the money?"

Keynes?

His support is almost across the political spectrum :/

Harkat wrote:

Just as I thought I was getting bored of sex

im sorry

Harkat wrote:im sorry

Don't be sorry for reigniting my interest in sex, m8

Harkat wrote:

Thats fucking horrible

@oglemons pic

No mention of strawman? Booo

Genevieve wrote:

Phigure wrote:or maybe cause he didnt want to participate in wage slavery?

No, he was notoriously poor at handling money. His parents knew it and begged him to get a grip of himself, because he was being a financial drain on them too. He lived beyond his means, hiring housekeepers he couldn't afford, etc.

It's not just that he 'didn't want to be a wage slave'. He was even terrible at handling money that was given to him by friends and family.

in the style of fallacy man...

AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM

Phigure wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Phigure wrote:or maybe cause he didnt want to participate in wage slavery?

No, he was notoriously poor at handling money. His parents knew it and begged him to get a grip of himself, because he was being a financial drain on them too. He lived beyond his means, hiring housekeepers he couldn't afford, etc.

It's not just that he 'didn't want to be a wage slave'. He was even terrible at handling money that was given to him by friends and family.

in the style of fallacy man...

AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM

It's not an ad hominem when you go on to explain that his family and relatives begged him not to spend any more of their money and that he didn't just 'opt out of having a job', but that he was actually mismanaging funs he had aquired as gifts.

I was correcting your wrong assertion. You're out of arguments and looked for a cartoon to bail you out.

OG Lemon who is russia girl?

Genevieve wrote:It's not an ad hominem when you go on to explain that his family and relatives begged him not to spend any more of their money and that he didn't just 'opt out of having a job', but that he was actually mismanaging funs he had aquired as gifts.

I was correcting your wrong assertion. You're out of arguments and looked for a cartoon to bail you out.

Genevieve wrote:The guy most lefists look to for a lesson on monetary policy is the same guy that never asked himself "maybe it's me and not the money?"

implying that his views on economics and capitalism are wrong just cause he was bad at personal finance, looks like an ad hominem to me

Phigure wrote:

Genevieve wrote:It's not an ad hominem when you go on to explain that his family and relatives begged him not to spend any more of their money and that he didn't just 'opt out of having a job', but that he was actually mismanaging funs he had aquired as gifts.

I was correcting your wrong assertion. You're out of arguments and looked for a cartoon to bail you out.

Genevieve wrote:The guy most lefists look to for a lesson on monetary policy is the same guy that never asked himself "maybe it's me and not the money?"

implying that his views on economics and capitalism are wrong just cause he was bad at personal finance, looks like an ad hominem to me

No. I'm not talking about capitalism or economics, but money in specific. Though obviously, money is a big part of economics and the products of free people trading. However...

I originally called him out for being bad with money and demonizing money at the same time.

You were trying to say that he didn't just 'want to be a wage slave'.

I further expanded that he was trying to live beyond his means with money that was given to him by friends and family and that it had nothing to do with him not wanting to be a 'wage slave'.

And the original point was that Karl Marx wrote a lot about money in specific and saw money as an "evil". Yet it's curious that he was also terrible at managing money or really earning it. It's not an ad hominem to point out that someone who spends his lifetime mismanaging his finances can never be a fair and balanced source on money.

This threads about to reach 10 000 posts, please dont go full dsf and ruin this moment. Do it fot nils

his arguments should be evaluated on their merit alone, not whether or not he was personally shit with money

edit: gene let's do 10k full dsf style

Do as I say not as I do

there hasnt been many funny fucking pictures the last ffew posts

page 500 was a poor effort

hubb wrote:I'd say very broadly that Freud discussed motivation, whereas Nfucktypingthat dealt with instincts -so in that sence Freud made part of the same principle more accesible but also wet as fuck.

And seriously his mother was quite attractive and very sociable, which I personally can't let go when judging the scope of what I've read.

I work in a publishing house and we've released a shit load of Freud and a lot of it seems like it was written by a mind set on having a wank right after putting the pen down.

[+] Spoiler

Probably put the pen up-wait that's Freudian, shit. Hmm?

If she was your mum would you fuck her?

Genevieve wrote:

jags wrote:

Genevieve wrote: The guy most lefists look to for a lesson on monetary policy is the same guy that never asked himself "maybe it's me and not the money?"

Keynes?

I don't think you get what you're talking about. Most leftists look toward keynes on monetary policy. Anyone who's actually read marx shouldn't take it for more than a moral reference imo

jesslem wrote:Most leftists look toward Keynes on monetary policy.

Something we shouldn't be doing.

I think he's alright tbf. I think the problems come about with extrapolation.